Discussion of in-game politics. Please post "In character" in here, IE as in your game persona or character. This is not for discussion ABOUT the game or about politics in the game, but actual political debate.

I got no argument with the t2 goods prices. Still I wonder why titanium is being lowered; its the only alternative t1 commodity worth hauling besides carbon. I would think it would be more realistic if the values of the commodities were closer together, so that occasionally other commodities, besides carbon and meat respectively, would spring to the top of the heap, simulating varying demand conditions.

Will there be contracts for t2 goods offered at starbases, or is this purely a local market addition?

I voted no, since Ram still insists on putting T1 changes in the same package for T2 voting, even though there has been several recommendations for having T1 changes in a seperate discussion and vote.

The title for discussion this voting is based on was "ASC - T2 Discussion". This seems to be a vialation of Rams own platform. And I see no reason for having T1 in the T2 voting, as it could still be presented as one package for the UNCA, even with spereate voting in ASC.

I cant see there has been given enough room for discussion around T1 prices at this point. And without having seen peoples arguments, there is not enough info available to support this.

I thougth maybe Ram had learned from all the protests that came during T2 discussions when T1 was added in a sneaky way. But was dissapointed to see no seperate voting just for T2.

Loke wrote:I voted no, since Ram still insists on putting T1 changes in the same package for T2 voting, even though there has been several recommendations for having T1 changes in a seperate discussion and vote.

The title for discussion this voting is based on was "ASC - T2 Discussion". This seems to be a vialation of Rams own platform. And I see no reason for having T1 in the T2 voting, as it could still be presented as one package for the UNCA, even with spereate voting in ASC.

I cant see there has been given enough room for discussion around T1 prices at this point. And without having seen peoples arguments, there is not enough info available to support this.

I thougth maybe Ram had learned from all the protests that came during T2 discussions when T1 was added in a sneaky way. But was dissapointed to see no seperate voting just for T2.

Again, because I am lazy and plan to present all this to the UNCA to address at once. They seem to be very busy right now and I fear I will get one shot at getting all this, along with Shipyard prices, addressed at present.

The President is given the ability to adjust T1 prices without consultation. I have been open and have communicated my plans from the start.

darkwhistle wrote:Still I wonder why titanium is being lowered; its the only alternative t1 commodity worth hauling besides carbon.

I was actually thinking this as I created the new pricing sheet for the poll. The reason is to not flood the market with too many credits causing hyperinflation. I struggle with the price increases of the T2 currently. I felt since no one talked about ti prices, it was not a big deal.

Once all this gets inputted and we see how things are going, I plan on having a discussion with the UNCA about agro prices and the flipped pricing structure we have. If they have no solid reasoning for it, I will plan on looking at another adjustment of T1 prices in a few months. I think doing too much all at once could be damaging AND the UNCA will not accept too many changes all at once either. They tend to move very slowly and cautiously about things like this.

darkwhistle wrote:Will there be contracts for t2 goods offered at starbases, or is this purely a local market addition?

I plan to request this, but I am afraid that the UNCA will not take the time to implement this part right now.

"The UNCA is not your boss!" ~ Jessica SteeleFan Fiction from an old timer - RAM Memories

Loke wrote: And I see no reason for having T1 in the T2 voting, as it could still be presented as one package for the UNCA, even with spereate voting in ASC.

Again, because I am lazy and plan to present all this to the UNCA to address at once.

I have NEVER said you should do anything else than "present all this to the UNCA at once", so could you please stop claiming this over and over? I have even specifically said you can still present it as one package to UNCA, but it seems you choose not to read that (dont tell me you have learned from my bad manners in this regard?).

Ofc you are free to do it as you wish, you just dont get my support. And when you do things differently than than the way you presented your platform, dont get suprised if there is a rant from me